Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

1…163164166168169…327

Comments

  • #4952
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Je suis Ashers

    Wow...

    what away to co-opt and trivialise the senseless and brutal murders of the Charlie Hebdo victims.


  • #4953
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,892 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    dvdman1 wrote: »
    we deserve to be treated equal
    So vote yes to treat same sex couples equally.


  • #4954
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    bjork wrote: »
    I'm not forcing them to do anything

    By not allowing them to get married you are forcing them not to get married.
    bjork wrote: »
    Why the desperation get married? What is it exactly that is so appealing about marriage that a civil partnership or other laws don't cover?

    Civil Partnership is not the same thing as marriage. Marriage has a number of different legal impacts that civil partnership doesn't have. This has been stated repeatedly.
    bjork wrote: »
    Who are you to say what belongs in "modern Ireland"? I thought diversity was the name of the game? Diversity >>once we all agree with you?

    Should we embrace racism in the name of diversity so? Stop playing the victim as you attempt to discriminate against others.


  • #4955
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    There are loads of interesting studies available at the moment, all about the biological component of homosexuality. The current consensus seems to be leaning towards a strong genetic component determining sexual attraction, with a smaller environmental influence.

    We have seen homosexual behavior in a wide array of animals, and some interesting strides have been made in solving the puzzle of how something that does not favor reproduction can survive as a trait if it has such a strong genetic component: female relatives of gay males, for instance, tend to reproduce significantly more, enough to off-set any reproductive disadvantage in their male relatives.

    There is also some evidence that large related groups may benefit from some non-reproducing gay members that do not have to invest in their own offspring. In such a case the homosexual members themselves are far less likely to reproduce successfully, but the wider group gains significant advantages.

    All in all, it seems unnatural acts are perfectly natural :)


  • #4956
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    osarusan wrote: »
    So vote yes to treat same sex couples equally.

    But ewwwww


  • Advertisement
  • #4957
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    Have you read any of this thread?

    Yes I have and have yet to see someone explain exactly what it is.


    Also I have another question: If same sex marriage is permitted are we effectively writing in the acceptance of more than two people to the default definition of marriage?


  • #4958
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,466 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Je suis Ashers

    In that case, can I order a dozen chocolate eclaires please?
    I promise to eat them in a way that doesn't look too much like a sex act. (thought this is quite tricky)

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • #4959
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,169 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    myshirt wrote: »
    CFUjxDgW8AAgc3f.png

    Here these guys are talking about Judgement Day, and I haven't even seen Terminator 1. Absolutely ruined it for me. I just bought the box set.


    Ok, on a serious note.... who are these people... this is insane... there seems to be an increased emergence of this quite sinister element of the debate raising its head, shouting a bit louder.

    There's plenty of room for them in Russia.

    Oh wait, they're Orthodox, not Catholic, so it sucks to be this particular crowd of mouth-breathers.


  • #4960
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,166 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    That was like reading a long version of an Iona poster! Do Iona hate paragraphs too?

    They can't. God had used para's on the stone tablets he gave Moses.


  • #4961
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    bjork wrote: »
    Yes I have and have yet to see someone explain exactly what it is.


    Also I have another question: If same sex marriage is permitted are we effectively writing in the acceptance of more than two people to the default definition of marriage?

    Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, have you not read what the actual referendum is about!?!?


  • Advertisement
  • #4962
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, have you not read what the actual referendum is about!?!?
    Yes, I have. Can you answer my question?


  • #4963
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    bjork wrote: »
    Yes I have and have yet to see someone explain exactly what it is.

    You could always try to educate yourself you know. If you're going to vote on the matter the least you could do is make an effort to inform yourself. In modern day democracy you have that responsibility, much and all as you might baulk at the idea.

    Here's a link that you should read, but I expect that you won't:

    http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html

    There are over 160 differences between civil partnership and marriage, the full list of which you can find here:

    http://www.marriagequality.ie/marriageaudit/full-list


  • #4964
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,892 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    bjork wrote: »
    Yes, I have.
    What do you think it is about, having read about it?


  • #4965
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    bjork wrote: »
    Yes, I have. Can you answer my question?

    Voters will be asked whether to add to the Constitution that "marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex"


  • #4966
    Hyzepher
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,680 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    bjork wrote: »
    Also I have another question: If same sex marriage is permitted are we effectively writing in the acceptance of more than two people to the default definition of marriage?

    How did you come to the conclusion that a question like that was relevant


  • #4967
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,046 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    bjork wrote: »
    Yes, I have. Can you answer my question?

    No you haven't:

    “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”

    See the bit about two persons there?


  • #4968
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,166 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Surrogacy is not related to marriage, a person does not have to be married to use a surrogate.

    Unless you believe what Iona is saying will be in the constitution if the Yes side win the vote: sure and everyone know's you can't have sex outside matrimony, can you............ :D


  • #4969
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    bjork wrote: »
    Yes, I have. Can you answer my question?

    You obviously haven't.

    This is what we're voting on:
    “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”


  • #4970
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    bjork wrote: »
    Yes I have and have yet to see someone explain exactly what it is.


    Also I have another question: If same sex marriage is permitted are we effectively writing in the acceptance of more than two people to the default definition of marriage?

    The general consensus seems to be that polygamy will still not be allowed. The proposed wording states: Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex. However, even though it specifically states that two persons may marry, it does not specifically state that more than two cannot marry. The constitution never specifically barred polygamy.


  • #4971
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    bjork wrote: »
    Yes, I have. Can you answer my question?

    Please read and revert: http://refcom2015.ie/english_guide.pdf


  • Advertisement
  • #4972
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,892 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    have you not read what the actual referendum is about!?!?
    bjork wrote: »
    Yes, I have.
    bjork wrote: »
    Yes I have
    bjork wrote: »
    If same sex marriage is permitted are we effectively writing in the acceptance of more than two people to the default definition of marriage?

    Sure you have.


  • #4973
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭StewartGriffin


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Wow...

    what away to co-opt and trivialise the senseless and brutal murders of the Charlie Hebdo victims.

    Using their plight to score points in a debate is worse.


  • #4974
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bjork wrote: »
    Yes I have and have yet to see someone explain exactly what it is.


    Also I have another question: If same sex marriage is permitted are we effectively writing in the acceptance of more than two people to the default definition of marriage?


    Why not? think about the poor polyamourous crowd who are not treated equally, or the other list of people who the state dont allow to marry, if all marriage requires is love sure let everyone marry each other, relatives and all! Sure incest/forced copulation occurs in nature too, must be 'natural' then.


  • #4975
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Why not? think about the poor polyamourous crowd who are not treated equally, or the other list of people who the state dont allow to marry, if all marriage requires is love sure let everyone marry each other, relatives and all! Sure incest/forced copulation occurs in nature too, must be 'natural' then.

    Oh, no! People! We're on a SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!


  • #4976
    Cuban Pete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 156 ✭✭Cuban Pete


    It's like Groundhog Day in here. Amazing how people can say the same thing over and over and act like it hasn't been shown to be utter bull.


  • #4977
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    I think the Ashers' case only reveals the lie that a No vote would be about 'protecting freedom of conscience' (i.e. religious discrimination)

    Even where gay people cannot marry, within the EU such 'freedom to discriminate' is not tolerated outside of specifically religious organisations.

    Such a judgment would be made in the same case here in the Republic whether we vote yes or no. Voting no does not repeal anti-discrimination laws and rulings on the grounds of sexuality/politics/religion!


  • #4978
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,647 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Why not? think about the poor polyamourous crowd who are not treated equally, or the other list of people who the state dont allow to marry, if all marriage requires is love sure let everyone marry each other, relatives and all! Sure incest/forced copulation occurs in nature too, must be 'natural' then.
    If you want to do all of that, then go ahead and campaign for it.

    This referendum is just about allowing gay couples marry. Nothing more, nothing less.


  • #4979
    Baggy Trousers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭Baggy Trousers


    bjork wrote: »
    Yes, I have. Can you answer my question?

    Burn! :)

    It's only 17 words...


  • #4980
    Ironé
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 260 ✭✭Ironé


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Why not? think about the poor polyamourous crowd who are not treated equally, or the other list of people who the state dont allow to marry, if all marriage requires is love sure let everyone marry each other, relatives and all! Sure incest/forced copulation occurs in nature too, must be 'natural' then.

    The wording of the referendum is fairly straightforward - it specifically states that it is between two people.

    Two consenting same sex couples marrying harms noone - and is between themselves. How can you possibly put this on a par with rape and incest? I mean where is your logic here?

    Aside from anything else we are only being asked to allow TWO people two marry regardless of their gender - so the above is irrelevant.


  • Advertisement
  • #4981
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    If you want to do all of that, then go ahead and campaign for it.

    This referendum is just about allowing gay couples marry. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Wouldent have the funding/media or political backing though polyamory would be great if we could get that one in.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement